I've been frustrated listening to all of this conversation. We are the health committee, and yet we've heard about everything, especially from the Conservatives, other than health. We heard about WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin, billionaire islands, the cost of housing. We even heard about Mr. Kitchen's kitchen.
I would implore the committee to get back to health. That's what we're here for. I've been on this committee for four years, and I think that, compared to a lot of committees, we've actually done a pretty good job in being non-partisan when we had to be non-partisan. For example, on the workforce shortage study, I think we came up with some good recommendations, and in fact I think the government has gone with a lot of those recommendations. I think the breast implant study—thanks to Mr. Thériault—was a real success, too, and we were coming up with some recommendations, if we ever get to them.
Now, we have a couple of studies that are in line for us to deal with, such as the opioid crisis, which the Conservatives certainly agree is a crisis. I mean, here we are holding this emergency debate to deal with this issue that was basically before us two years ago. I feel like we're turning the clock back.
I know that Mr. Davies was here. I know that Mr. Kitchen was here. I know that Sonia was here and Darren was here when we dealt with this two years ago under COVID, when there was the question of revealing the contracts with the vaccine manufacturers. We dealt with all of that two years ago. Here we are, and suddenly this is a big emergency.
Well, I would support the Conservative position to begin with, that the opioid crisis is far more of an emergency than this is. I would also say that the women's study is more important than this. As Don said, I don't think the health committee has ever studied women's health before.
Instead of doing all that, we're going back and we're turning the clock back to the issue of what was in those contracts. I reluctantly support the amendment to limit the number of sessions we're going to hold on it, but I really do think this is interrupting far more serious work.
Let me go to the actual issue of those contracts. Like some of the other people here, I was on the health committee during the time of COVID. For those who weren't there, let me tell you, when we first talked to scientists about how long it would take to get the vaccines, almost everybody was saying something like five years. A few people thought it might be as short as two years. However, the fact that we got the vaccines out as quickly as we did was a real accomplishment. It was a real horse race back then. We were all globally looking for whoever could come up with the vaccines the fastest.
You know what? I was somebody who was critical of my own government at the time on various things in response to COVID, but in terms of the vaccines and our ability to get the vaccines out, I think we did really well. If you look at the ones we chose—Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca—we hit the nail on the head. Yes, there was also Medicago, but that was one of many. We had advance purchase agreements for those, and it served Canadians very well. When we look back at it, I think that our response to the COVID pandemic was pretty good.
As for Medicago, to Don's point, my understanding is that 21% of the ownership was Philip Morris, and I certainly understand WHO's position in not supporting anything done by big tobacco, but I'm not sure if the government even knew of the 21% ownership. Back at the height of COVID, I don't know how much that mattered, because if Medicago came up with a vaccine and was the quickest to produce the vaccine, are you really going to tell me that nobody would have accepted it because 21% of the ownership was with Philip Morris?
I ask the Conservatives, the NDP and everyone else: Who owns shares in Pfizer and Moderna? Do we know? Have we looked into that? Would we contract with those depending on who owned shares in that?
Yes, in terms of accountability, $150 million is a lot of money, but hindsight is 20/20. We didn't know who was going to win the horse race and who was going to be the first to produce the vaccines. I think it was a sound policy decision for the government not to put all its eggs in one basket, not to invest in just one vaccine manufacturer but to invest in a number of vaccine manufacturers. That's what we did. Not everyone was going to win this race. It turned out that some of the companies we invested in didn't. It turned out that Medicago, for $150 million, did do the work. They did produce a vaccine, so the money wasn't really wasted per se.
As for looking into it and as for transparency, my understanding is that the public accounts committee has looked at and is continuing to look at those contracts. The Auditor General has looked at those contracts. We, ourselves.... Don will remember this, as he was part of the motion to procure all relevant documents related to the contracts with vaccine manufacturers. We fought this battle two years ago and those contracts were revealed. It is not as though there's been no transparency on this issue.
For us to spend another two or three sessions on this rather than dealing with the opioid crisis and women's health is wrong, I think. It's unfortunate that yet again the Conservatives seem to want to impede our ability to actually deal with the real issues we ought to be dealing with.
I would urge everyone on the committee.... We are the health committee. We should be looking after the health of Canadians and not wasting our time. Yes, it isn't a waste of our time, but as I'm sure Dr. Ellis will realize, in medicine you have to triage things according to importance. Are we really going to put this in front of, for example, the opioid crisis? I don't agree with that.
Be that as it may, if we can confine it to as few sessions as possible, I'm in favour of that.
Thank you.